The Undergirding Factor is POWER: Toward an Understanding of Prejudice and Racism

By Caleb Rosado
Department of Urban Studies
Eastern University
Philadelphia, PAThe Undergirding Factor is POWERToward an Understanding of Prejudice and Racism
As the dawn of the 21st century nears, racism‹the most important and
persistent social problem in America and in the world today‹is on the
rise in increasing ways. Whether we are talking about ethnic
cleansings, group hatred or retraction of equity laws under the guise
that these are unfair, the underlying issue is the same. One group,
threatened by the perceived loss of power, exercises social, economic
and political muscle against the Other to retain privilege by
restructuring for social advantage. Such actions and efforts call for
an understanding of the basic concepts of prejudice and racism, and how
to lessen their destructive effect.
At the heart of prejudice lies two concepts: ignorance and fear.
All of us tend to have prejudicial attitudes towards others. This type
of prejudice or "pre-judgment" is based on ignorance. It is a normal
human response to racial, social, sexual and other forms of differences,
because all human beings tend to prejudge others on the basis of
limited knowledge, especially if they are different from us. Thus we
are all prejudiced, and virtually none are exempt. Most of what passes
for prejudice in society is the result of ignorance of other groups and
their way of life and social condition. Because of the way American
society is presently structured, most Whites have almost no conceptual
idea nor first-hand experience of life in the African American and
Latino communities. This is because the prevailing norms of separation
and segregation that prevent people of different racial/ethnic groups
from interacting with each other in a meaningful and positive way,
perpetuate this ignorance of groups, which in turn gives rise to
attitudes of prejudice. In light of such a common human condition, the
advice of a former seminary professor of mine is most helpful and worthy
of practice: "The mark of a mature mind is the ability to suspend
judgment until all the evidence is in."
The other factor is fear, and this one goes much deeper than ignorance,
for its strikes at the root of prejudice, the issue of privilege and
power. What makes racial prejudice so sinister is not just the act of
prejudging a person or a group. Prejudice is an inflexible, rational
attitude that, often in a disguised manner, defends privilege, and even
after evidence to the contrary will not change, so that the
post-judgment is the same as the pre-judgment.. In the definition of
prejudice, the indictment is greater for post-judgment than for
pre-judgment. If you don¹t have post-judgment in your definition of
prejudice you don¹t know what you are talking about. This is because
racial prejudice is the refusal to change one's attitude even after
evidence to the contrary, so that one will continue to post-judge people
the same way one pre-judged them. This is the due to the fear of
losing the power of privilege. In prejudice people are basically
defending privilege of position and thus stand to gain emotionally,
culturally, socially and economically from an attitude of prejudice
towards others. Whenever people sense that these privileges are
threatened they become fearful of the Other and react. The old adage
applies here: "A person convinced against their will is of the same
opinion still." Prejudice thus becomes the mental framework to protect
from fear, thereby safeguarding a position of social advantage and
privilege over others defined as different, and therefore, undeserving.
People find great social and economical benefit from being prejudiced.
And as long as these gains are forthcoming, people will continue to
maintain their prejudice, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, for
prejudice is more visceral than cerebral.
Prejudice operates on three levels:
1. The Cognitive Level‹What people believe about others, their
stereotypes. Stereotypes are a set of exaggerated and inaccurate
generalizations about a group or category of people that is either
favorable or unfavorable, which are often emotionally toned and not
susceptible of modification through empirical evidence. These
generalizations are maintained because they are a shared belief
receiving strong support from one's reference groups. Stereotypes are
the social scripts we have in our heads about others and the roles we
believe they should play in our socially constructed world.
2. The Emotional Level‹The feelings that the Other arouses in an
individual. These may be negative feelings of fear, dread, caution,
fight or flight; or positive feelings of joy, solidarity, and we-ness,
depending on how the Other is viewed. The deep well out of which these
feelings rise is filled with early memories of encounters with others or
with behaviors and beliefs we were socialized, which surge to the
surface when the Other is encountered. The emotional level is the most
important level because even after the cognitive level has been
challenged and undermined, we still hang on to prejudice at the
emotional or affective level because of the psychological need it
fulfills‹the need to feel superior, which in actuality is a state of
inferiority. Much of this can be attributed to an educational system in
this country that has deprived most White Americans of their ethnic
heritage, by touting the experience of one group‹the English‹as the norm
for all. Thus, Nathan McCall is correct when he declares that "the
education system in this country has failed white people more than it¹s
failed anybody else. It has crippled them and limited their humanity.
They¹re the ones who need to know the most about everybody because
they¹re the ones running the country. They¹ve been taught so little
about anybody other than white people that they can¹t understand, even
when they try." When Whites see persons of color expressing pride in
their heritage there is a sense of estrangement because they cannot do
the same except in some generic "American" heritage. The result is an
attack on multiculturalism and the need for a sense of psychological
superiority expressed in prejudice at the affective level.
3. The Behavioral Level‹The tendency to engage in discriminatory
behavior. Discrimination is the unequal treatment of individuals or
groups on the basis of some, usually categorical, attribute, such as
race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, or social
class membership. Prejudice is an attitude, however. When it results
in an action, it becomes discrimination. Both together form the basis
for racism. Prejudice is an attitudinal bias, while discrimination is a
behavioral bias.
The privilege that prejudice rationally defends is a product of racism.
Racism, however, is more than just prejudice and discrimination
combined. Racism is a socially constructed reality at the heart of
society¹s structures. Racism is the deliberate structuring of privilege
by means of an objective, differential and unequal treatment of people,
for the purpose of social advantage over scarce resources, resulting in
an ideology of supremacy which justifies power of position by placing a
negative meaning on perceived or actual biological/cultural
differences. Racism and prejudice are not mental illnesses or
psychological problems people have. Neither are they the product of
"psychological abnormalities." Both are rational, cultural and
structural phenomena to defend power. Racism goes beyond prejudice (an
attitude) to structure this power advantage politically, economically,
culturally and religiously within a social system, whether it be simple
(as in personal bias) or complex (as in the role apartheid played in
South Africa), which gives social advantage to some at the expense of
others perceived to be inferior and undeserving.
In its essence, racism is culturally sanctioned strategies that defend
the advantages of power, privilege and prestige which "Whites have
because of the subordinated position of racial minorities." This
deliberate political, economical, religious and sociocultural
structuring of privilege, does not take place in some moral vacuum. It
has behind it the moral force of an ideology of supremacy, an ill-will
that claims racial superiority and pride of position. By ideology I
mean a system of ideas and beliefs about the universe, to which a people
adhere in order to justify their attitudes and actions. This ideology
can have a religious or a scientific basis, depending on which one
shapes our worldview. Nevertheless the outcome is the same, where one
group benefits and the other does not.
Ever since the European restructuring of the world from the 16th
century on, racism has become affirmative action for whites. It is both
an attitude and an act of structural superiority, which justifies its
very existence by giving biological differences, such as skin color,
texture of the hair, physical features; or cultural differences such as
language, religion, ethnicity, or accent, a negative value and meaning.
This negative meaning then legitimizes treating the Other as inferior
to oneself or ones group. The result is an objective (visible,
measurable, tangible), differential (there is an obvious difference
between groups), and unequal treatment (the difference in treatment is
not the same), where one groups gets consistently short-changed. The
working definition for both racism and sexism is the same. Both refer
to evil perpetrated against others. The only difference is that in
racism color is the excuse for oppression, while in sexism it is gender.
But racism has very little to do with color, just like sexism has
little to do with sex or gender. Biological differences are not the
problem; they are merely the excuse for oppression. Let me illustrate.
No person of color has ever suffered discrimination because of the
color of their skin. If color were the problem then the solution would
be to change your skin color, an action which persons of color
throughout history have often attempted, because of the wrong assumption
that the problem was the color of their skin. Yet, the problem is not
skin color, but systems that perpetrate evil against others and then
justify that evil by blaming the victims. There is nothing wrong with
the color black, brown or yellow. It is not skin color that forms the
basis for discrimination, but the negative meaning given to the color of
skin. "Color is neutral; it is the mind that gives it meaning."
Neither are women discriminated against because of their gender. If
gender were the problem then the solution would also be to have a
sex-change operation. But the problem is not gender but systems which
benefit men at the expense of women and then justify the evil
perpetrated by putting the blame on gender. Women are discriminated
against because of the negative meaning given to their gender. It is
not our gender or skin color that we have to change, but systems of
oppression that benefit some groups at the expense of others. This
whole process is what William Ryan calls "blaming the victim." It is an
ideological process that justifies inequality by finding defects in the
victims of inequality. The logical outcome of analyzing social
problems in terms of the deficiencies of the victim is a simple formula
for action: Change the victim!
William I. Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas, who are numbered among the
founders of American sociology, enunciated a most important concept in
1928, "the definition of the situation"‹the Thomas Theorem‹also known as
"the self-fulfilling prophecy." "If a situation is defined as real, it
is real in its consequences." Thus how one defines a situation
depends on how one perceives it. For example, the congestion in an
elevator or crowded subway is called "intimacy" at a party. This
theorem has far-reaching implications for an understanding of race
relations as well as the role of women in the church and in society, for
"all social reality is defined, [and] power comes from the ability to
control the definition of situations." For example, if women are
regarded as emotional, concerned only with domestic matters and
immediate concerns, and incapable of achieving leadership positions
because of a lack of leadership skills, the consequence is that they are
not given adequate occupational opportunities. They end up being
relegated to secondary roles, thereby making true in reality the
definition enunciated. It also holds true in race relations. If
African Americans and Latinos are defined as lazy, incompetent,
unintelligent, culturally deficient and lacking leadership skills, they
too will be relegated to a secondary status in society and not given the
opportunity to advance, resulting in consequences which are real
thereby justifying the original definition of their situation.
Thus the meaning that people give to their reality, whether or not
true, causes people to behave in a manner that makes the original
meaning actually come true. "A man pretending to have a gun can order
his victims around just as effectively as if he really had one, provided
that they believe he does."
What this means is that as human beings we have the capacity of giving
meaning to the world around us. None of us sees the world exactly as it
is, for the reality that we see is literally an invention of the brain,
actively constructed from a constantly changing flood of information we
take into our minds, which is then interpreted through our experiences.
The fact that two people looking at the same object do not see the
same thing is a result of two different types of vision‹the "visual
field" in the eye and the "visual world" in the brain. The visual field
is made up of the light, colors and figures recorded by the retina.
The visual world is made up of all the sociocultural experiences stored
in the mind that define the image in the retina, giving it an
interpretive meaning called "perception." Though the image is in the
eye, perception is in the mind. What people actually "see" is not the
reality of the image, but the reality of the perception. Thus,
American writer, Anais Nin (1903-1977) is correct when she says: "We
don¹t see things as they are, we see them as we are." Perception is
reality! And however one defines the world, that is how it will be.
Take a piece of cloth such as a handkerchief. What is the function of a
handkerchief? To wipe off sweat, clean our hands, wipe our mouth, blow
our nose‹all menial tasks. Is the meaning of these functions in the
cloth? No. It is in culture, in our human society which has taught us
to view and regard a handkerchief in this way. You can take the same
piece of cloth and make it into a shirt or a blouse and give it the
functions of both protecting and celebrating our bodies. You can also
take this same piece of cloth, add some red, some blue and some stars
and turn it into a flag, and it becomes the signature of a people,
symbolizing their group identity and nationality. And many are willing
to die and kill for it, and others to stand at attention with tears in
their eyes in a moment of triumph, like the many athletes at the Olympic
Games as their national flag is raised in celebrated honor of their
world-record victories. Consider Karch Kiraly, Captain of the United
States Olympic volleyball team, which won the gold medal in both the
1984 and 1988 games, and who was been designated "The World's Best
Volleyball Player" by the International Volleyball Federation. After
the team won the gold medal at the 1984 games in Los Angeles, Kiraly
declared: "I don't remember much about the last match for the gold in
Los Angeles, and I don't remember the medal being put around my neck,
but I'll never forget singing‹screaming‹the anthem as our flag went up
just a little higher than the others." Over what? Over a mere piece
of colored cloth! Not just any cloth, however, but a cloth imbued with
meaning, significance and national symbolism and in which we invest
emotions that bring spin-tingling sensations in moments of victory or
patriotism, or outrage when desecrated, such as the 1989 political flap
over the burning of the American flag.
The problem is that for too long in American society we have been
placing meaning not just on cloth, but on the perception of physical
characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, gender, age, sexual
orientation; or on social differences such as religion, ethnicity,
language and social class. We have relegated some people to be the
handkerchiefs of life, and others to be the blouses and shirts, all the
while securing a prominent place for those whom we chose to celebrate as
flags. We even publish magazines and sleaze newspapers so that we can
keep up with the daily life of our favorite human flags.
I submit to you that the United States is not only a multicultural
nation, but also a nation in conflict with its values, values of
freedom, equality, liberty and justice for all. For the meaning is not
in the cloth, the meaning is not in the gender, the meaning is not in
the hair, the meaning is not in the color of the skin nor in the ethnic
origin or language of a people, nor in the sexual orientation; the
meaning is in the culture and in the socioreligious values transmitted
from one generation to the next. It is this negative meaning, based on a
system of beliefs that one group is superior to another group, that
forms the basis for attitudes of prejudice and actions of
discrimination, which result in racism‹the social construction of
power‹both in society and in the church.
The importance of all of this to society is that we often treat others,
especially those who differ from us whether by race, class or gender,
as below us and regard them as handkerchiefs, as menial and
insignificant; while we regard others, our colleagues and friends, as
shirts and blouses; and still others, such as leaders and those in
positions of power, as flags before whom we do obeisance and pay our due
respect.
What we have in American society is the problem of a homogeneous value
system operating within a heterogeneous society. It is the problem of
maintaining stereotypes and actions of discrimination which dehumanize,
and in many ways make less of human beings. Yet, if we are good enough
for God, we ought to be good enough for each other. Being a "world
citizen"‹a transcending person who knows no boundaries‹begins with
compassion, love-action that gives a positive meaning and sense of worth
to all human beings, resulting in our treating each other as the
beautiful human flags that we all are.
The Issue is Power: Both Material and Moral:
Racism, however, is more than an ideology, a belief system or a
negative attitude towards others arising out of prejudice. If that
alone were the case, then racism would be "reduced to something which
takes place inside human heads, and the implicit presupposition here is
that a change of attitude which will put an end to racial oppression can
be brought about by dialogue, by an ethical appeal for a change of
mentality." But such an understanding ignores the real factor behind
racism (as well as sexism) Power! Racism‹and sexism‹are not about color
or gender; they are about Power! They can thus afflict anyone of any
gender, color, community, culture, or country, who craves power above
the need to respect the Other. At the heart of racism (as well as
sexism) lies the concept of group competition‹the quest for power.
What is power? Power in its essence is the capacity to act..
Sociologically, power comes in two forms, as coercive and as choice. In
its coercive form it is the capacity to act in a manner that influences
the behavior of others even against their wishes. This is material
power, the most prevalent and destructive form of power in society
today, and appeals to the baser qualities of human beings, because of
competition over scarce resources. Power as choice, on the other hand,
is the capacity to act in a manner that influences the behavior of
others without violating free moral choice. This is moral power, which
appeals to the higher faculties of humankind. This type of power gives
rise to true power. "True power is knowing that you can, but you
don¹t." To practice this form of power is the height of self-control.
Once one understands that racism at its core has to do with power, one
will then recognize that at the root of racism lie two important
elements‹the material and moral basis of oppression.
The Material Base of Oppression: Racism is more than just a meaning
system, a reinterpretation of reality; it is also a material system,
economically and politically structured, from which this meaning system
emerges. In order to grasp the significance of this, one needs to
understand a basic premise of sociology, that no single institution in
society can be understood in isola-tion from the larger society of which
it is a part. This is because institutions do not exist in a social
vacuum, but are social-historical entities influencing and at the same
time being influenced by their socio-cultural milieu. Indi-viduals and
institutions, in many ways, are products of the larger soci-ety of which
they are a part. And the reciprocal influence of the one upon the
other, often goes unnoticed to human observation, but it is there
nonetheless. Therefore it is helpful to visualize the reciprocal
relationship between the individual, roles, institution, society and its
undergirding culture, for each one shapes the other.
Individuals are shaped and in turn shape the roles they play, which are
formed by the institutions in which the roles are played out.
Institutions in turn are shaped by the needs of society as well as give
structure to that society, which shapes individuals as well as is
influenced by those individuals that comprise society. This entire
process of reciprocal exchange is largely influenced by the specific
culture of a given society. Culture influences who we are as
individuals and the different roles different individuals are permitted
to play within which institutions, and in what way these shape society,
which in turn shapes individuals and vice versa. It is in culture where
both prejudice and racism reside. These forces and power arrangements
shape people¹s lives as well as the roles and institutions within
society, resulting in exclusive structures and society. Culture is the
key factor, for as Shirley Teper declares:
Culture is called a habit system in which "truths" that have been
perpetuated by a group over centuries have permeated the unconscious.
This basic belief system, from which "rational" conclusions spring, may
be so deeply ingrained that it becomes indistinguishable from human
perception‹the way one sees, feels, believes, knows. It is the
continuity of cultural assumptions and patterns that gives order to
one's world, reduces an infinite variety of options to a manageable
stream of beliefs, gives a person a firm footing in time and space, and
binds the lone individual to the communality of a group.
Thus, culture impacts all aspects of this reciprocal process of social
influence, which process is prevalent in all human societies.
Throughout human history racism has expressed itself in the
socio-economic exploitation of God's dark-skinned children, which
exploitation has been justified by biological-cultural differences, when
the real reasons were economic as a result of group competition. This
material basis of exploitation is the principle reason behind the White
domination of the darker races and the limitation of their access to
power, which has resulted in an objective or visible, differential and
unequal treatment.
In 1903 W. B. E. DuBois, the great African American writer and
sociologist, declared in his book, The Souls of Black Folk, that "the
problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line‹the
relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa,
in America and the islands of the sea." Fifty years later, however, he
altered his views with the realization that the real problems were
economic. "Today I see more clearly than yesterday that back of the
problem of race and color, lies a greater problem which both obscures
and implements its: and that is the fact that so many civilized persons
are willing to live in comfort even if the price of this is poverty,
ignorance and disease of the majority of their fellowmen."
Prejudice by itself does not constitute racism, however. Neither does
power by itself. But when people use their position of power, be it
political or institutional, to reinforce their prejudices and to enforce
them so that as a result of their racial prejudices the life chances,
rights and opportunities of others are limited, the result is racism.
Thus, the simplest definition of racism then is: Racism is prejudice
plus power. On the basis of this definition, while all people can be
prejudiced, only those who have power are really racist. African
Americans, Latinos, Asians and American Indians‹the powerless in
American society‹can be and often are most prejudiced toward Whites on
an individual basis, but they are not racists at the structural,
institutional level. Within this understanding of racism, to be a
racist you have to possess two things: 1) socioeconomic power to force
others to do what you desire even if they don't want to, and 2), the
justification of this power abuse by an ideology of biological
supremacy. Keep in mind that what often is described as racism in
society today, is really nothing more than prejudice and discrimination.
While a Black or Latino person, through the use of a gun and/or
intimidation, can force a White person to do as he‹as an
individual‹desires, this is an individual act of aggression, not a
socially structured power arrangement. At present, however, only Whites
have that kind of power, reinforced by a belief in an ideology of
supremacy, both of which constitute the basis of racism in America
today.
What I am talking about here is not individual racism, but
institutional racism. There are essentially three types of racism
operating in society: Individual, Institutional and Cultural.
Individual racism is a belief in the superiority of one's own race over
another, and the behavioral enactments that maintain these superior and
inferior positions. Individuals of any color can and often behave in
prejudicial and racist manners, by setting themselves up as inherently
superior to other groups. But this is individual behavior, and its
influence does not extend much beyond the individual¹s beliefs and
behaviors. Unless, of course, the individual has the power to transform
these beliefs and behaviors into institutional and social policies that
govern action. This is Institutional Racism. Institutional racism is
the conscious manipulation of the structures of society's institutions
so as to systematically discriminate against people of color by their
prestructured practices, policies and power arrangements. Merely
conforming to the institution¹s mode of operation frees individuals from
personal discrimination, as the institutions now do the discriminating
for individuals. Institutional racism is the most pervasive and
powerful expression of racism in American society. Because most people
carry out their lives within institutions, control of institutions
affects people¹s life choices. Yet, "people don¹t always know what
choices they have until they know what options are available." And
when the options are limited or non-existent, then the life choices are
scarce. Thus, the power of institutions. The third type of racism is
Cultural Racism, a combination of both. Cultural racism is the
individual and institutional expressions of the superiority of one
race's cultural heritage over that of another race. We live in a
society where racism permeates all areas of our culture in an expanding
manner, at the individual, institutional and cultural dimensions. The
"telescoping effect" of all three forms of racism has a most devastating
and self-perpetuating influence on society, for each type impacts the
other.
Thus, individual racism (based on the attitudes, behaviors, and
self-interests by which we have been socialized), is given a structural
form through the various institutions in society (such as the church,
labor, health, economics, education, politics, etc.), which in turn
impacts our cultural expression (our aesthetics, religion, philosophy,
ideals, values, needs and beliefs). Of all three forms of racism, the
most pernicious and influential is the middle one, institutional racism.
Our society is so structured that most people, especially Whites, buy
into this institutional racism without personally having power or being
personally aware that they have power or that they are in a situation of
privilege. As Peggy McIntosh says, "As a white person I had been
taught about racism as something which puts others at a disadvantage,
but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white
privilege, which puts me at an advantage . . . I was taught to see
racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems
conferring domination on my group."
Audrey Smedley, in her outstanding book, Racism in North America:
Origin and Evolution of a Worldview, brings out the force of White
privilege and its expression in institutional racism, in the following
statement.

Race in the American mind was and is tantamount to a statement about
profound and unbridgeable differences. In whatever context race comes
to play, it conveys the meaning of nontranscendable social distance.
This sense of difference is conditioned into most individuals early in
their lives and becomes bonded to emotions nurtured in childhood. In
the United States, it is expressed in all kinds of situations and
encounters between peoples. It is structured into the social system
through residential separation, differential education, training, and
incomes, and informal restrictions against socializing, intermarriage,
and common membership in various organizations, including, most visibly,
the church. It is reflected in virtually all media representations of
American society and in institutional aspects of culture such as music,
the arts, scientific research, educational institutions, politics and
political forums, businesses, the theater, television, music, and film
industries, and recreational activities. It provides the unspoken
guidelines for daily interaction among persons defined as of different
races, especially black and white. It sets the standards and rules for
conduct, even though individuals may not always be conscious of this
fact.

Such institutional expressions of privilege are not readily perceived
by Whites as "privilege" but as the "normal" day-in and day-out
opportunities of life, to which everyone has access. However, when, as a
result of demographic and political changes, Whites see their status
and the landscape of social power changing, this heretofore unseen
privilege now becomes most visible. "We are probably never so aware of
phenomena and objects as when we are about to gain or lose them.
Conversely, we never take them so much for granted as when we are
assured in their possession." When threatened, this previously unseen
privileged status becomes something to be protected at all costs.
Blacks tend to do the same when they sense Latinos and Asians
encroaching on their hard-fought gains and privileges. This kind of
exclusive behavior cuts across all race groups, not just Whites, and is
correlated with a sense of a loss of power and privilege. Langdon
Gilkey puts it this way. "When [people] give their ultimate devotion to
their own welfare or to the welfare of their group, they are no longer
free to be completely moral or rational when they find themselves under
pressure. Whenever the security of the object of this commitment is
threatened, they are driven by an intense anxiety to reinforce that
security."
It is under such conditions that people will riot, both Blacks and
Whites. People riot when they feel frustrated. Martin Luther King, Jr.
said that, "A riot is at bottom the language of the unheard." This is
usually the experience of persons of color, who due to their state of
powerlessness will often burn, loot and destroy. But White people riot
also, just in a different way. Whites riot, not by burning and looting,
for one does not burn down what one owns, but by using the system over
which they have control to pass laws and ordinances which limit the
opportunities of others in order to secure their "rights". These
legislations, in the long run, are destructive of more lives than any
riots which loot and burn. The two propositions passed in California,
Proposition 187 in 1994, the Save Our State Initiative, which sought to
protect the rights of legal U.S. residents by not granting the same
rights to undocumented immigrants; and Proposition 209 in 1996, the
Civil Rights Initiative, which eliminated affirmative action laws, are
both examples of the way White people riot. When you have control of
the socioeconomic and political system, you will use this power to
retain your privileges when you see these being eroded. Thus, both
Blacks and Whites riot, just in different ways; one as an expression of
powerlessness, the other as an expression of power. This latter mode is
what institutional racism is all about.
Thus, from a macro perspective, only Whites as group can be labeled as
racist in society, for the socioeconomic system is structured in their
favor. Now this does not imply that given the reserve in a shift in
power, that minority groups would not do the same, because in all
probability they would. Thus the problem is not one of race or
ethnicity; the problem is the basic human condition, which God long ago
described in the following words: "The heart is deceitful above all
things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah
17:9). This is why Lord Acton declared: "Power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely."
In order to best understand who is and who is not racist, we need to
look at racism from two different perspectives. The first is Aggressive
Racism (or institutional racism). This is racism with power. "It can
walk on its feet and strike with its fists because its spirit permeates
the institutions of power." The second form is Counter Racism (or the
so-called "reverse racism"). This is racism without power, the racism
of the powerless. "It lacks feet to walk on and fists with which to
strike. The spirit is present; the hope is compelling; but the will to
power cannot find the institutions of power through which it can express
itself." Whites express the first, persons of color the second. But
this second is not really racism, since it lack the power structure
through which to manifest itself, except on a one-to-one basis of
personal attack. Thus, the color of racism is not white, its not black,
its not brown, nor is it yellow or red‹it is green!, the color of
money, the color of power in American society!
The Moral Basis of Oppression: In order to justify such evil use of
power, people will use color, race, gender or sexual orientation as an
excuse for oppression by appealing to those moral systems which give
them a sense of meaning, righteousness and ultimate value in life‹their
ideological belief system, which serves as the highest authority in
their lives, the moral basis of their existence. Therefore, if people
use religion to explain their social reality, then a religious ideology
with its sacred writings will be used to justify this exploitation,
thereby transforming God into the biggest exploiter, racist and sexist,
even when this is done unconsciously. And if God is against you, then
who can be for you? If, however, a scientific perspective dominates a
person's worldview, then a scientific ideology will be used to show why
some groups of people are inferior to others. Richard J. Herrnstein¹s
and Charles Murray¹s book, The Bell Curve, is an excellent example of
this approach. In either case, the results are the same‹the relegation
of a segment of God's creation to a second-class status with an unequal
treatment.
Such an approach is based on the myth of the biological supremacy of
one group over another group. Yet "myths are created to fill
psychological needs." Thus, "although race is a biological concept,
racial differences are important for intergroup relations solely to the
extent that people attach cultural meaning to them.... Biological
differences may be unchangeable, but by themselves they are not
important. It is what we believe about these differences that matters.
And what we believe can change. The notion of a society that is
color-blind simply refers to a society in which no cultural meanings are
attached to human biological variations."
This being the case, racism and sexism will persist in human hearts as
long as they satisfy the felt needs of people‹such as the need to feel
superior to others. "No amount of statistical data or hard scientific
evidence suggesting a sociological rather than a genetic origin of
differences will change a 'true believer's' mythic ways." As long as
an attitude and action satisfies our needs, we will not change. Only
when people can be shown that a continued action or attitude will prove
to be destructive to their well-being, will they be willing to consider
an alternate course of action.
The Solution:
Where does the solution to this basic human problem lie? The simple
answer is in helping people "consider an alternate course of action."
How? Here is where it gets complex. Let me present several
complementary models. First, a basic premise: Racism in its essence is
the refusal to accept the Other as an equal. To do so, one will have
to share in the societal rewards of social wealth, political power, and
structural privilege. Thus, if racism has nothing to do with biology,
but has everything to do with socially structured beliefs and behavior,
then it can also be socially unlearned and unstructured. How people
proceed, however, depends on how they see themselves when confronted
with evil. There are four types of people in the face of evil:
1. Victimizers‹the perpetrators of evil.
2. Victims‹the recipients of evil.
3. Bystanders‹the ones who do nothing in the face of evil.
4. Rescuers‹the compassionate and altruistic who take action against evil.
The kind of action people take in a given situation will largely depend
on how they interpret that situation, or in general view themselves.
Thus, if people generally see themselves as Victimizers, they will come
to the help of no one. Being a Victim, however, can have a paralyzing
effect. When it comes to racism, people tend to respond on the basis of
their own experience. Thus, Whites tend to downplay a situation of
racism or discrimination because it has not greatly impacted them.
People of color, on the other hand, if they have experienced
discrimination, tend to view it as a more aggravated offense. It is a
matter of, where you stand determines what you see. If people do not
see a situation as threatening to them they may conclude that it is not
threatening to others as well, and will remain as Bystanders, often
because they see the social system as fair, "with liberty and justice
for all." This is a result of the "Just World Phenomenon." Stanley
Coren explains the concept this way:

People tend to feel that the world is, with a few bumps here and there,
pretty much a fair place, where people generally get what they deserve
and deserve what they get. This notion of a just world results from our
training as children that good is rewarded and evil is punished. A
natural conclusion can be drawn from that kind of reasoning: Those who
are rewarded must be good, and those who suffer (even from our own
discrimination and prejudice) must deserve their fate.

Unfortunately, much of what passes for racism in America today is not
regarded as such by Whites, because they buy into this Just World
Phenomenon. The result is that they tend to see situations from their
own perspective‹as fair and just‹and seldom from the perspective of the
Other, the victims of evil. If people of color see themselves as
victims it is often believed they bring it on themselves or are making a
bigger issue of things then there really is need for. The end result
is that when it comes to racism in American society, most Americans
"naturally" gravitate to the role of bystander and do nothing.
Another reason for such a lack if response is that Whites often see
racism as acts of commission‹what you are doing; while people of color
see racism as acts of omission‹what you are not doing. "Whites start
from a premise that a situation is not racist until we prove it is.
Blacks start from a premise that the situation is until you prove it¹s
not." Yet, it is only when we see evil from the perspective of the
Other that we will respond as Rescuers. Thus, the number of Rescuers in
society at any given time, willing to take a stand against evil, may
not be all that large. The point is that however we interpret a given
situation determines the type of response we take. What is interesting
about this conceptual scheme is that at any one time in our life from
childhood, each of us will have been all four of these types. The real
test is what type we are as mature adults? The answer to this question
pretty much determines whether we will be part of the problem or part of
the solution to the evil in the world.
Throughout history there have been two ways of bringing about social
change‹one is normative, the other is transformative. The Normative
Model of Change is based on the premise that change must start with the
individual and that beliefs change behavior. It follows a four-step
process:
The Normative Model of Change
(Premises: Change must start with individuals; beliefs change behavior)
1. Knowledge--provide people with all the necessary information.
2. Attitudes--knowledge will result in attitudinal changes.
3. Individual Behavior--attitudinal change results in individual behavioral change.
4. Group Behavior--individual change results in group change.
I call it "Normative" because it is the most prevalent model to effect
change. This four-step process, the normal way people think change
takes place, looks very logical, neat and workable, so that by giving
people the necessary information gradual change will take place from the
individual to the group. But there is one problem with it‹it seldom
works. The model breaks down at step 2. All the knowledge in the world
does not necessarily change people's attitudes. That¹s the point of
this whole discussion, as the old adage says: "A person convinced
against their will is of the same opinion still." In addition,
individual behavioral change does not necessarily translate into group
behavioral change.
A second model is the Transformative Model of Change, which is based
on the premise that change must start with institutions and that
behavior changes beliefs. As can be expected, this model involves fewer
steps, a two-step process:
The Transformative Model of Change
(Premises: Change must start with institutions; behavior changes beliefs)
1. Change Behavior.
2. Change Beliefs.
The first step in this model is to focus on the required institutional
behavioral changes. People will then bring their beliefs into line with
their behavior, which in turn affects their beliefs, and so on through
the spiral. Of the two, this is the more effective process to bring
about change, since people will not change unless forced to. Laurie
Beth Jones reminds us that, "Leaders who think others will follow them
for no reason, because it is their job description, or because they are
afraid to do otherwise, fail to understand a key element of the human
psyche. People will give up what they are used to only when they
clearly understand and are shown something better. The trick is
understanding and communicating the difference between good and better,"
for good is often the enemy of the best.
Social psychologist Thomas F. Pettigrew declares: "It is commonly held
that attitudes must change before behavior; yet social psychological
research points conclusively to the opposite order of events as more
common. Behavior changes first, because of new laws or other
interventions; individuals then modify their ideas to fit their new
acts." Anthropologist Benjamin D. Paul adds: "We assume that people
base their actions on reasoning and that the remedy for erroneous action
is to correct the erroneous reasoning. But the reverse of this
proposition probably comes closer to the truth. People think the way
they do because they behave the way they do, and their behavior is
modeled on the behavioral patterns of their culture. People rationalize
more often then they reason."
Thus, once one understands the material and moral basis of racism,
these two factors can be turned on their heads and used against racism.
While an appeal to the moral foundation of human beings to get them to
do the right thing because it is the right and moral things to do has
its place, in our corrupt world with imperfect human beings "morality
can never replace force." It can, however, as Langdon Gilkey reminds
us, "provide the deep basis for the creative use of force. . . . But if
people won't be persuaded, and if they can't be compelled, how is the
justice to be enacted? . . . Legitimate force is one of the necessary
bases upon which justice can be established in human affairs." People
will then, more often than not, line up their beliefs with their
behaviors, at least outwardly, if for no other reason than for economic
expediency or social approval or political power. Thus, the
Transformative Model of Change is the more workable model of the two to
effect change. This is not to imply that the Normative Model is not
needed, but that the assumptions implied in it are false.
There is another conceptual scheme, drawing from the Transformative
Model, that utilizes three modes for bringing about change, as
illustrated by the following graphic.
The first is the Bureaucratic Model that works from the top-down.
Since racism is a structural response to the rejection of differences,
racism cannot be eliminated without first addressing institutional
structures of exclusion. The elimination of racism is not possible,
therefore, without the basic institutional alteration of society,
because it is a culturally and structurally sanctioned reality.
The key factor for success in this process is to work through the
primary social institutions that perpetuate the learning of racism and
its corresponding behavior of exclusion: the family, the school, the
church, the workplace, and government. Yet, these institutions tend to
have four basic characteristics. First, institutions tend to be
resistant to change. Once established institutions only change with
great difficulty. Second, institutions tend to be interdependent. They
tend to hold the same values, norms and interests, and penalize the
same groups. Third, institutions tend to change together. For the sake
of cultural continuity, changes in one institution are usually followed
by changes in the other institutions. Fourth, institutions tend to be
the sight of major social problems. Because institutions exist to meet
basic social needs, failure to meet people¹s needs results in the
emergence of conflict. Also the need to maintain the status quo,
meaning the prevailing power privileges for those in control, further
exacerbates conflict.
These institutions must undergo a dramatic transformation for racism to
be eliminated. Yet, fundamental change as opposed to cosmetic change
has not taken place in America in terms of diversity, because the very
institutions that established the prevailing doctrines and practices
justifying unequal treatment are only willing to undergo superficial
reforms rather than radical transformation. A moral appeal by itself
will not work, for the societal forces pushing for exclusion are too
strong. Thus, the need for legislative and economic pressures to ensure
that change and inclusion will become a living reality.
A second mode is the Grassroots Model, from the bottom-up. This was
best illustrated by Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights
Movement, as well as the Women¹s Movement, challenging systems at the
ground level. Here is where Gordon Allport¹s Theory of Racial Contact
comes in. Allport suggests that contact between groups will decrease
prejudice when it occurs under conditions of equal status and
cooperation. What Allport is saying is that the problems of intergroup
conflict (prejudice, discrimination, racism or sexism) in the world
today are the result of status inequality (differences in wealth, power
and prestige), coupled with socioeconomic competition. The solution to
these problems lies in first eliminating status inequality and
socioeconomic competition at the grassroots level. It is then, and only
then, that prejudice, discrimination, racism and sexism will cease.
Efforts to overcome prejudice before overcoming status inequality are
bound to fail, thus the need for eliminating inequality. Studies do
show that when groups come together on an equal basis, in a
non-competitive environment, prejudice is definitely reduced.
The problem with both of these models is that they are based on a
vertical orientation, with one group up and the other down, in a
struggle for power. Such an orientation does not always get to the
heart of the problem. Another model is needed.
This third mode is the Heart Model. It is based on a horizontal
orientation that proceeds from the inside-out. In addition to the other
two approaches, individuals also need to experience an internal
transformation. Herein lies the key factor. All the diversity training
and race relations classes in the world will effect little good,
because much of the approach is cerebral, fact-filled and intellectual.
But this cerebral, external approach has to be balanced off with an
approach to internal transformation. The Heart Model suggests that to
bring about a change in human relations more than just lip-service,
unbalanced approaches and fine words are needed. When Jesus declared
that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matthew
12:34), he meant that our words and attitudes toward each other well up
from a deeper source, our genuine heart-felt feelings. All the
diversity training and education in the world will not effect much
lasting change if the source of such change, our emotions and feelings
toward one another, are not transformed. For this reason, the most
effective and lasting change in race relations can only take place when
the transformation is internal‹at the heart level, our gut reaction‹and
not just external in superficial words and cosmetic deeds.
This is the weakness of the Normative Model of change, in that all the
intercultural knowledge in the world will effect little change if it is
not accompanied by internal heart/emotional transformation. It is not
the mind that so much needs transformation as the heart, the seat of
emotions, feelings, and psychological needs that preserve self-interest
even against evidence to the contrary. If individuals themselves do not
undergo such an internal paradigm shift little will have been
accomplished. Thus, for effective improvement in race and ethnic
relations, the unit of analysis must not only be the institution but
also the individual. It then becomes a reciprocal process of change.
"Inside-out" change takes place on two levels. The first is the level
of the individual within the institution. This change entails
"individuals finding, nurturing, and creating the conditions that
promote care within the social institutions in which the routinely live
their lives." As Pearl and Samuel Oliner remind us, "A caring society. .
. depends on just this very process." This is the only way
institutions will change, as individuals begin to "live the change they
wish to see in the world," as Gandhi so gently reminded us. But what
enables individuals to live out this change is the second levels, an
internal transformation in their own hearts. This has much to do with
character.
Character is an individual trait essential for the creation of a caring
society, "a society where people assume responsibility for the Other¹s
welfare, in that they acknowledge the Others¹ needs and act
responsively." What is character? Character is that quality of
soul‹mind, will and emotions‹that imprints our moral being with personal
integrity in word and deed. It has much to do with honor, the ability
to give your word and keep it. And it is developed through the power of
choice in the wise decisions we make. There is a vast difference
between character and reputation. Reputation is who we are in the
presence of others; character is who we are when we are alone. What we
do when we are alone is who we really are. Here is where "true power"
is made manifest, in the decisions that we make. A lot of corporations,
organizations, as well as individuals are concerned with their
reputation and therefore address diversity issues, but only because they
are forced to comply or else their bottomline‹economic gains‹will be
effected. Such is not the change that proceeds from character.
Character-based change is where change takes place because to do
otherwise would be unjust. It is one where the initiative comes, not
from the ones experience injustice, but from those who have the power to
implement justice and do so because they recognize the situation for
what it is, and not because they have been reminded of what it is not.
This type of change emerges from an understanding and practice of
genuine justice.
Genuine justice is not based on fairness! In fact, a preoccupation
with justice as fairness lies at the root of most problems in our
society and in the world today, whether between individuals, groups or
nations, and is at the center of the affirmative action debate. At the
heart of "justice as fairness" lies equal treatment, which wrongly
assumes everyone is the same and thus the need for "fair play," which we
all learn from childhood. But socio-historical circumstances preclude
equality. This is why in some track and field events, the starting
blocks are staggered, so that everyone will have an equal opportunity.
This is where affirmative action comes in as equitable measures‹short of
restructuring society‹which seek to make for a level playing field.
There are many people today in America¹s class-divided society that,
because of socio-historical conditions or merely accidents of birth,
find themselves on the "inside track" and don¹t always realize that
circumstances are stacked in their favor, but think they are playing on a
level field. When they see the starting blocks being staggered, to
give those on the "outside track" an equal chance, they cry out,
"unfair," "reverse discrimination," "preferential treatment," not
realizing that the playing field of American society is stratified.
Short of totally redesigning the playing field of socioeconomic,
political structures, affirmative action becomes essential in righting
societal inequities. It is based on the "principle of redress," that
undeserved inequalities call for rectification. Since inequalities of
birth are undeserved, these inequalities are to be somehow compensated
for. Thus in order to treat all persons equally and provide genuine
equality of opportunity, society must give more attention to those born
into or placed in less favorable social positions. This "fair share"
approach is a particularistic and not a universal action, since it is an
attempt to place particular groups in the position that they would have
held had there been no barriers in their paths to success.
Thus, genuine justice is based on need, not fairness. And since
people¹s needs differ, due to differing socio-historical circumstances,
true justice does not spring from what people deserve, but from what
they need. It is not fair play but fair share. Why? Because as Oliver
Wendell Holmes said, "There is no greater inequality than the equal
treatment of unequals." Thus, at the heart of justice lies grace‹
unearned, unmerited, undeserved favor. Only when individuals and
institutions get to this point will we begin to approximate a caring
society. This requires two basic character qualities in individuals:
compassion and a positive self image.
Compassion‹The Counterpart of Racism: Without compassion we will not
create a caring society. Compassion is a rare commodity in the world
today, especially in the business and political world. To be successful
in the interconnected world of interdependence and interhuman relations
of the 21st century, compassion needs to be a necessary individual and
institutional character quality.
Compassion is not the same as sympathy. There is a vast difference.
Sympathy (meaning to sorrow with) is an emotional response of sorrow
toward another being generated by pity. Whereas compassion (meaning to
suffer with) is the ability to suffer with another being‹including
non-humans‹with loving, caring concern, in an endeavor to alleviate
suffering and remove the pain.
Three couplets illustrate the difference between the two.
1. Sympathy looks down with teary-eyed pity and says, "Oh, I am so
sorry." Compassion comes down with loving concern and declares, "How
can I be of help?"
2. Sympathy remains in the realm of affection. Compassion always moves from affection to action.
3. Sympathy is some times motivated out of self-interest in a pious
cloak. Compassion is motivated out of a genuine concern for others‹the
opposite of indifference‹with no strings attached. The essence of
Compassion is taking the role of the Other and viewing life from the
Other¹s perspective, out of the Other¹s situation of need, as a
motivation for action. Compassion is a character trait of Rescuers.
How do compassion and sympathy differ from empathy? These three
concepts tend to be confused in the minds of many as similar or even the
same, but they are not. They are vastly different and elicit from the
respondent three different types of behaviors. These three behaviors
can best be illustrated in the following manner.
1. In Sympathy there is sorrow for the Other in need. But with sorrow
there is also a sense of distance, separation from the Other, an
"I¹m-not-like-you" type of response. Even though there is an emotional
response, the "bridge of identification" with the Other has not been
crossed. There is an emotional experience of social distance. This is
often the experience of Bystanders.
2. In Empathy there is not only sorrow, but also an identification with
the Other in need. Here the person crosses the "bridge of
identification" and enters into the emotional sphere of the Other and
identifies with the pain. The Other senses and knows that
identification has taken place. This is a "weeping with those who weep"
kind of act.
3. In Compassion, however, there is not only sorrow and identification
with the Other in need, but also an involvement in action to meet the
need.
Here the response does not stop at identification, but goes one step
further to take the necessary steps of action to alleviate suffering.
The two-way arrow symbolizes that the action takes into consideration
the wishes and, if possible, the involvement of the Other in a
reciprocal process of bringing about change through empowerment. Much
of what passes for compassion is often an imposition from the outside,
without regard for what might be best for the Other nor for their input.
There is nothing wrong with sympathy, per se, however. There are many
times when the only action a person can take is limited at a sympathetic
response. There are other times when one can go further and express
empathy. And there will be times when the opportunity will be there to
express compassion. The problem comes when one has the ability to
demonstrate compassion, but for reasons of one¹s own choosing, decides
to limit the action only to sympathy or at best empathy. This is what
the story of the Good Samaritan is all about‹to see oneself in the
experience of the Other and move into action to change the
circumstances, and not just limit one¹s efforts to a mere sympathetic or
empathetic response. Compassion, thus, is an attitude, an orientation
toward life, which arises out of spirituality‹that sense of
interconnectedness‹and manifests itself in action.
Compassion is the opposite of racism, which is nothing but systemic
indifference justified by biological/cultural differences. But like
racism, it is both an attitude and an action. It is an attitude of
prejudice for the Other, rather than against the Other as in racism,
resulting in social caring. Such a positive attitude results in action
that empowers the Other rather than depriving the Other of power and
privilege. But compassion, the counterpart of racism, is only possible
through spirituality. Spirituality is a state of interconnectedness
with the Other‹the divine, the self, the human, the natural, or any
combination thereof‹resulting in a position of security with a sense of
worthful purpose. This is Holistic Spirituality, spirituality in four
dimensions, where the human center‹our social self‹is interconnected
with: a vertical to God, the world of the sacred; an inward to self,
the world of personal well-being; a horizontal to humankind, the world
of people; and a downward to nature, the world of all non-human
life-forms.
A connectedness to God, however defined, is most important because from
this connection springs the compassion and spirituality that connects
us to the Other. Malcolm X recognized this. "I said to Harlem Street
audiences that only when mankind would submit to God who created
all‹only then would mankind even approach the Œpeace¹ of which so much
talk could be heard‹but toward which so little action was seen." It is
not without coincidence that the most disconnected people, those without
attachments whether to others, to self, society or God, are the ones
that often commit the worst of crimes. Racism is the result of being
disconnected from the Other. Compassion is what brings us together,
eliminating the racism; and spirituality is the socio-divine "glue"
bonding human spirits into one common human family.
At the heart of compassion lies "respect"‹the process whereby the Other
is treated with deference, courtesy and compassion in an endeavor to
safeguard the integrity, dignity, value and social worth of the
individual. It means treating people the way they want to be treated.
This includes one¹s self, the second quality of internal transformation.
The Need For a Positive Self Image: The inside-out transformation of
the Heart Model is not possible without a positive sense of self, the
idea of "I¹m okay." From such an understanding emerges the follow-up
idea that "you're okay." This is what Jesus meant when He declared,
"Love your neighbor as yourself." How I feel about myself is a good
indicator of how I feel about others. If I feel that I am superior to
others‹I¹, okay, you¹re not okay‹then I will treat others as inferior to
me or my group, and will behave accordingly in a manner that
dehumanizes others. If, on the other hand, I feel nothing but hate for
myself, this will be reflected in my attitude and actions toward others.
Both actions are similar in that they emerge from a negative sense of
self. Thus, people's behavior toward others is already a loud statement
as to how they feel about themselves, and tells us more about them than
it does about the one they despise. From this it can be seen that
racism emerges from a deep psychological sense of insecurity, toward
self and toward others. And the legacy can be self-destruction. The
perpetrator of racism dehumanizes him or herself, for they are behaving
less than humane. And the recipient of this legacy of structured hatred
can end up hating themselves as a result of a socio-psychological sense
of being without social value, worth, power and hope.
It should therefore come as no surprise, especially to White people,
when this state of social trauma spills out in rage and violence in the
streets. Nathan McCall in his autobiography, Makes Me Want to Holler: A
Young Black Man In America (Random 1993), reminds us that the
consequence of teaching people to hate themselves is violence to
themselves, what Franz Fanon called, "horizontal violence." This
violence is best expressed in the killing of another person like unto
themselves as a form of killing oneself, because my "brother" is an
extension of myself. The result is Black brothers killing each other.
McCall says, "If my life does not matter, your life does not matter
either, since neither one of us has a future." This is what Jesus
meant, in that if all I feel is hatred for myself, then all I feel for
you, as an extension of myself, is also hatred! Much of the racist
violence in society today from all sides stems from this
socio-psychological behavior.
This is why Whitney Houston was correct when she sang in her No. 1 song
of 1986: "Learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all." If I
don't have a healthy appreciation of self, I will not have a healthy
appreciation of you. This is the universal principle that Nathan McCall
learned from reading Malcolm X¹s autobiography: "that if you change
your self-perception, you can change your behavior." Thus, in a real
sense perception is reality.
The point of the third mode, the Heart Model, is that unity in the
human family will not come about because we have restructured the
institutions of society, but because our hearts have been transformed.
To which Paulo Freire will immediately adds. It is an "illusion that
the hearts of men and women can be transformed while the social
structures which make those hearts Œsick¹ are left intact and
unchanged." Thus, all three modes‹the bureaucratic, the grassroots and
the heart mode‹are essential for bringing about lasting, effective
change, with living diversity as the new modus operandi.
These various conceptual models to effect change are summarized in the
following seven steps which enable individuals and systems to work
toward the reduction of racism. I say "reduction" because human beings
being what they are, the complete elimination of racism and prejudice is
not possible in a society comprised of flawed human beings. This is
what Karl Mannheim declared long ago. "To live consistently, in the
light of Christian brotherly love, in a society which is not organized
on the same principle is impossible. The individual in his personal
conduct is always compelled‹in so far as he does not resort to breaking
up the existing social structure‹to fall short of his own nobler
motives." Nevertheless, the following seven steps are essential to
lessen racism¹s impact.
STEPS TO ELIMINATE RACISM
Steps___________________ Problem Eliminated_______
1. Information Ignorance
2. Equal educational opportunity Status Inequality
3. Self-Acceptance Psychological need to feel superior
4. Noncompetitive group contact Prejudice
5. Economic parity Group competition
6. Behavior changing legislation Discrimination
7. Compassion Indifference
None of these steps by themselves will effect lasting change. All
seven, however, as an embodiment of the models presented, taken
together, will go a long way toward creating a caring society.
Conclusion:
Let me conclude with a story. Malcolm X, in his autobiography, relates
the experience he once had in Michigan during winter, when he decided
to give himself a good conk. I don't know whether or not you know what a
"conk" is, so let me explain.
We live in a society that portrays by various means what it regards as
beautiful, acceptable and of value. And when it comes to hair style,
what is usually conveyed is that long, flowing, straight hair is
beautiful, while nappy, curly, "kinky" hair is not desirable. At least
this was the value system in the 1940s, 50's and early 60's, prior to
the Black Power Movement. Latinos talk of "good" hair and "bad"
hair‹pelo bueno y pelo malo. I now realize that there is only one kind
of bad hair, the one that keeps failing out.
Many African Americans bought the assumption that if the hair could be
straightened, then one would be more acceptable by the prevailing
values. African American men then made themselves stocking caps, from
their mother's or wives nylon stockings, to use at night while they
slept, to keep their hair from getting curly too soon. The process
whereby nappy hair was straightened was called "conking," due to the
special home-brew substance called "congolene." There was a saying in
the ghetto that praised the value of congolene that went like this:
"Naps may snap, and curls may twirl, but congolene will rule the world."
And so one mid-winter day in Flint, Michigan, Malcolm X decided to give
himself a conk. He went to the grocery store and bought a couple of
eggs, two medium-sized white potatoes, and a can of Red Devil lye. Then
at the drug store, he got a large jar of Vaseline, a large bar of soap, a
large-toothed comb and a fine-toothed comb, a rubber hose with a metal
spray head, a rubber apron and a pair of gloves. He went home, peeled
the potatoes, grated them, worked in the two eggs, then poured in the
lye, and the congolene‹a pale-yellowish, jelly-like, starchy-looking
glob‹began to get warm, due to the lye. He then took the apron, tied it
high around his neck and combed up his bush of hair. Then the vaseline
was worked into the scalp, down the neck, over the ears and forehead.
This was the precautionary measure, for wherever the skin was not
protected by the vaseline, the lye would burn in sores. The congolene
was then applied to the hair and combed in. All of a sudden Malcolm's
head caught fire, as the lye began to cook the hair. The idea was that
"the longer you can stand it, the straighter the hair."
As the comb worked the congolene through the hair, Malcolm X says, "it
felt as if it was raking my skin off." With gritted teeth, eyes
watering and nose running, finally he could not take it any longer and
bolted to the kitchen sink to wash it all off . . . and the pipes were
frozen! The situation immediately made his scalp burn all the hotter.
In desperation, Malcolm finally stuck his head in the toilet, and
flush after flush after flush, he washed off all that junk.
But from that toilet arose a changed man, one who realized the steps
toward self-degradation and self-mutilation multitudes of African
American men and women in America were willing to be "brainwashed into
believing that the African American people are 'inferior'‹and white
people 'superior'‹that they will even violate and mutilate their
God-created bodies to try to look 'pretty' by white standards."
The life of Malcolm X (Malcolm Little, alias El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz)
went through three stages of change. From the pimp and hustler‹before
prison; to the militant Black Muslim‹after prison, first conversion; to
the world citizen‹after Mecca, second conversion. Such radical change
represents what I call, "The X Factor"‹The ability to change.
Malcolm thus becomes a model of what is possible in the human condition.
Manus Buthelezi, South Africa's leading Black theologian, is therefore
correct in declaring: "The black man must be enabled through the
interpretation and application of the Gospel to realize that blackness,
like whiteness, is a good natural face cream from God and not some
cosmological curse." The same can be said to Latinos, Asians, Indians,
and all human beings who negate their God-given humanity. We must stop
seeking to mold people after distorted human images and allow them the
right to be born into the beautiful image of God, thereby bringing about
a divine corrective to a dehumanized and dehumanizing world. It is
then, and only then, that we will have some semblance of a chance to end
prejudice and racism.